Well so much for the idea that the new legislation that comedy duo Balls and Badman want to introduce will only be good for home educators, it has done much harm even while it is only proposed legislation, not least in the amount of time it means that we home educated parents have wasted on it. The trustees of our local HE group wrote to 120 Lords last week campaigning, that’s quite a lot of time taken by people who are already serving the HE community locally beyond just providing for their own children.

Anyway onto my minor muttering.

Tomorrow on the ferry while I am going through the wonders of factorisation with the girls Martin will not be playing Shut the Box with Jonathan as I had planned. Rather he will probably be busy blogging a rant and writing to our MP about the consequences of the latest attacks on HE.

So once more we are campaigning for the right to continue to HE how we want rather than actually spending the time HEing how we want. And playing maths games on the ferry is what I want to do!

I’ve just heard the latest on Kerry Robertson and the thought of social services virtually wrenching her baby from it’s mothers breast leads me feeling numb. I’m not one for trial by newspaper, especially where the Daily Mail is concerned, but Fife council’s behaviour has all the hallmarks of our current statistic approach to child protection. Compassion is gone, trust in parents is gone, the state knows what is best for us all. We have been fed a lie through politicians and bureaucrats whispering in our ears, demonising those that oppose then and grabbing ever more power for the state by instilling a sense of fear into the population. Through fear they can control, as they tell us how they will keep us safe.

I’m not saying there isn’t an argument for the state taking a role in child protection. I simply think it has reached a stage where they are doing more harm than good. The approach is typified by Graham Badman’s recent comment made to the house of commons committee debating plans to force me to register my children as I can’t be trusted to raise them:

“You ask me why the urgency. My urgency would be very simple: if, by going forward with a registration scheme, we safeguard the life of just one child, it is worth it.”

What a load of tosh. If your cognitive abilities are so poor that you can’t understand that government should never make policy on that basis then you shouldn’t be within 100 yearsd of parliament. The fact they let him in the door is evidence of the insanity of the system. Your urgency isn’t simple, your argument is simplistic.

And yet, this phrase has been trotted out time after time, and many people simply nod, hypnotized. Think it through people. You have to think beyond the emotive issue of the life you “safeguard” and look at the bigger picture. Does the action put a life somewhere else at risk? What impact does it have on people’s freedom to participate fully in society, to express themselves, to hold differing views? What impact will it have on the quality of life other children can expect?

Trying to distil a highly complex issue down to a crappy little soundbite which tugs at people’s heart strings is little short of evil.

Our system must stop trying to convince us there is greater danger than there really is, it must stop trying to eradicate any line of thinking which does not accord with the PTB’s ideology, must start trusting, and must be prepared to take some risks. Risk that things will go wrong. Risks that people will get hurt, physically or emotionally. Risks that people will die. We don’t live in a perfect world, bad things will happen. Government cannot protect us. Time to give back more trust, more faith in individuals, in parents, in families, in society, let’s take the risk.

Image courtesy of the Department for Children, Schools and Families and used under the terms of a creative commons license

I have recently delved into the world of the Freedom of Information Act. Under the act the people of this country have the right to request the release of information held by public bodies. It’s all about transparency. For apparently obvious reasons, the government added in a number of safeguards, under which public departments could withhold information in certain situations. Unfortunately the Department for Children, Schools and Families for one appears to simply use these rules as a filter for its disinformation campaigns.

The recently released Badman review of home education makes a number of claims which don’t appear to be substantiated within the report. As such a number of home educators have made FOI requests to have the data used to draw some of Badman’s conclusions released. In addition various other elements of the review have been under scrutiny so other requests have been made for information related to the review.

One would hope that in such a situation DCSF would release all of the information asked of it, in order to show they have nothing to hide about the review, and its recommendations are based on a solid base of research and consultation. You can probably guess that they aren’t quite taking that approach.

Firstly lots of responses to the review have been requested, particularly those from local authorities. As far as I can tell these have all been refused “because the information relates to the formulation and development of government policy” – an exemption under S35(1)(a) of the act. Its an interesting exemption which appears to give them the ability to formulate and develop government policy based on spurious and ill-founded responses from other sections of government, with no ability for people to see if that is the case. This exemption was also used to withhold all correspondence between Graham Badman and the DCSF. So we can see the public terms of reference for the review, but not any extra requests made…

The departments responses most recently have taken a bizarre turn. Responses like this are now commonplace: “The Department is aware that attempts are being made on the Internet to vilify and harass the author of the review, and others who have participated, in ways which clearly go beyond the bounds of reasonable criticism and debate. It is the Department’s view that, whilst dealing with each request on its merits, this situation will have to be taken into account in dealing with any relevant FOI requests. We therefore consider that section 38 is engaged in respect of your request. The Department is not suggesting that you have participated, or are participating, in such a campaign. As far as we are concerned you are a bona fide requester under the Act and we have treated your request accordingly. It is unfortunate that the activities of a minority of people on the Internet have caused us to engage section 38.”

Now, I have every sympathy for someone whose health is genuinely being put at risk, and I think the FOI having an exemption allowing refusal on such grounds is sensible. But let’s take a look at this case:

1. Where is this claimed campaign of “vilification”? Search the Internet, see what you find. If you turn up anything which threatens Graham Badman’s health please do let me know. I’ll post a correction and even send him a get well soon card.

2. What is vilification? And when does it impact on someone’s mental health? Does my little jibe in point 1 count? Clearly lots of people criticising someone can have an impact on their mental health does this mean all criticism is outlawed? The report’s author was (presumably) paid by government, he was commissioned by government, he accepted a status as an “expert” bestowed by government, he saw fit to personally make a series of recommendations including that government should legislate to clamp down on home education. I’m sorry, but if he didn’t expect robust criticism, satire, and expressions of anger then….

3. How will the information being withheld make this health-destroying vilification worse? The quote above comes from this FOI request. What was it asking for? The cost of the review.

My personal view is that the DCSF is hiding behind these exemptions to cover up its own disinformation campaign designed to discredit home education. In the absence of factual information they have used supposition, rumour and such extreme manipulation of numerical information you can’t even call it statistics. Then when we ask to see that information they hide as much of it as possible from us, using their very own Freedom of Disinformation exemptions.

P.S. At the time of writing the DCSF have failed to respond to one of my Freedom of Information requests within 20 days. This is a breach of the law. A routine one though, it happens in in excess of 1 in 10 cases. I’m not holding my breath.

Over the last few days I have been posting a series of blog articles looking at the Badman review of home education, and proposals to introduce new legislation on the back of it. If you don’t know about the review, or the catastrophic effects it could have on educational freedoms and family rights in the UK, then I’d recommend you have a read. It is in 10 parts, so why not make a cup of tea before you begin 🙂 This is not a full analysis, nor a recommendation by recommendation critique, rather it deals with a series of topics related to the review. I hope it makes for accessible reading for home educators and non home educators alike.